The Austrian presidency’s intention to keep off the spring summit’s agenda a debate on economic protectionism – or nationalism – is a sign that the EU is in bad shape. If government leaders are not addressing at their gathering the biggest political and economic threat to the Union’s future and to their states’ economies, it means that they have lost hope in their capacity to resolve the problem. Or that they don’t trust each other.

Taking refuge in the ritual talk about the Lisbon Agenda, which by now it is clear has missed numerous chances to make Europe more competitive, is a comfortable but trivial distraction for the EU’s leaders, when companies which could be the instruments of growth in Europe are being prevented from growing their business across national borders. Anything short of a sincere and open discussion about economic nationalism would be disappointing.

The issue of protectionism was to be forced on the summit’s agenda by a group of more liberal-minded leaders. They were prepared to condemn economic nationalism, despite the Austrian presidency’s intentions to keep the summit clear of controversy, with neat conclusions, prepared well in advance. The UK, the Netherlands and Italy are leading the group of those wanting to storm the summit’s gates with such a denunciation – the Dutch and British governments because they are genuinely free-market liberalisers and the Italian government because it is, for once, a victim of such nationalism and because it is fighting an election at home.

France, Spain and Poland are the current villains who are trying to block the takeover of their companies by foreign (ie from other EU member states) firms. But Italy and Germany, which are now cast in the roles of victims, have on previous occasions been the villains. The Italian establishment blocked foreign takeovers of Italy’s banks and Germany made a mockery of the EU’s takeover directive, which comes into force in May, by making sure it was left to member states and to individual companies whether or not to apply some of the law’s key provisions.

The UK, on the other hand, while being hands-off on foreign takeovers, is taking a nationalistic stand on another important issue: a common EU energy policy.

Ironically, it was the UK government leader Tony Blair who launched, at the Hampton Court summit last October, the case for a common EU energy policy. Blair admitted that the EU and co-ordinated action by its member states could improve the chances of individual EU states to gain secure access to affordable and cleaner energy, while tackling the threat of climate change. But when, following the Hampton Court mandate, the European Commission put forward a plan for a common EU energy policy, London was quick to say it would not agree to any extra powers being granted to the EU in the area of energy and that the Commission should make do with its current competencies in the area. In the absence of a clear legal basis for a common energy policy, which would have been provided by the EU constitution, the Commission would have to count on promises and hope for an indulgent attitude from member states when it acts in this area.

When the two other topics of reinforced common EU action which emerged from the Hampton Court brainstorming – education and immigration – are discussed concretely, several member states are likely to take the same attitude. The UK is likely to oppose any EU meddling in education, a member state competence, while Germany is likely to put the brakes on plans to involve the EU more in immigration. Member states would like to give the Union the responsibility for improving European education standards and for finding solutions to the immigration problem, but without giving it the means.

This political ‘patriotism’, as well as France’s and Spain’s economic patriotism, is frustrating efforts to achieve economic growth, modernize the EU’s economies and improve the wellbeing of its people.

The EU government leaders should dedicate their spring summit to a sincere discussion about what they are doing themselves to frustrate their own objectives to achieve growth and employment. Instead of this, they will adopt some 40 page-conclusions with inscrutable prose about Lisbon Strategy stocktaking and more pledges. No one should be fooled – and no one will be.

The keynote speaker at the 20th anniversary celebration of the European Medicines Agency offered some challenges to conventional thinking about the next 20 years – including carefully calculated provocations of his hosts.